Fiona Millar on grammar schools in the Grauniad

[samsonagonistes]

This article here is doing my head in on a number of levels, not because I necessarily disagree with it, but mainly because I don't know what I think and I don't know enough about some of the research/thinking behind it to come to a conclusion on my own. So I'd be really grateful for any thoughts and/or pointers.

She's working from the premise that grammar schools are inherently bad, and that this is a clear thing for all right thinking left wing people. Now, when I read MN, I can see that plenty of parents want grammar schools and are fighting to get into them. So I end up feeling about this pretty much as I do about UKIP, that the point is not only/necessarily to condemn them outright, but what would be more useful would be to find out why people feel this way and what is actually going on for them right now. So what's the gap between theory and experience here and why?

Also, she seems to think that the main argument against grammar schools is that they are not engines of social equality. Now, this may be one argument against them, but surely the point of school is to deliver education, with equality of opportunity in achieving that. Lots of other things do not deliver social equality - like private schools, expensive clothes and London house prices to name but a few - but that's never part of the argument against them.

Also - and I am aware that this is going to be controversial - but an argument against their social mobility is that they take reduced numbers on FSM. Now, for this argument to be valid, we would have to assume that IQ is spread absolutely evenly throughout the population.* I would like this to be the case, but has this theory ever been tested/proven?

• and yes I am aware about the cultural relativity of testing, etc etc, but then schools are also culturally relative in that they privilege theater and art over other activities and there are so many knots in this problem that it's hard to disentangle.

And why can't we have a system that serves the outliers?

We accept that the outliers at the bottom end shouldn't be left adrift. So why is it okay for those at the top end?

As a society we need to nurture those outliers as they'll most likely end up in the industries which affect all our liveson a macro level.

At the moment these outliers are very well served in the private system. If we ignore their needs in the state system we simply allow the industries in question to continue to be domeinated by the posh boys.

Myh sons ( top set of English in selective fee paying school) moan about the extra work in that set. In fact I learned yesterday their set has done harder things - I think they did lots of different short stories so have to learn more and the other sets have done one book. Whether that is really easier or not I don't know and I am not complaining they are being made to do hard stuff.

In my own very small girls' private school where very very few went even to university I did feel out on a limb. I don't think the teachers failed me (although no one did science A levels so just as well I didn't want to do that) but it was isolating having no one much to talk to about the subjects, having my work read out to others (I think I got the best A level results in the school). Much better than being in the same situation in a hard to study noisy comprehensive mixed ability class I suspect though..... I am not complaining. I left school knowing I was pretty clever and won prizes. Were I middle of a selective school I might not have had that view. They are not easy issues to get right for our children.

Agreed. At the moment how you will do as an outlier depends almost entirely on your parents' wealth. Those who can afford to pay, send their top 2% children to a private school which will cater for their needs. Some who can't pay will get their children into a super selective of grammar. And some will not. How is that fair?

And it's a myth that state education can cater properly for these children. Some good schools do, but plenty more don't. And it's almost impossible to do so given the level of resources and mixed needs.

Hakylut. But what about the magnet schools. That would need almost no resources at all.

"Word Factory, I am with you entirely. In my case, the experience of O Level Business Studies in an entirely mixed class was grim. I stopped listening and started misbehaving really quite badly (fortunately the teacher was sympathetic and understood the reasons)."

But we're not talking about entirely mixed classes are we? We're talking about a set with kids aiming at, presumably As and Bs. Any halfway decent teacher could differentiate for an A in that group. My ds is in a school where people get pretty excited about Bs. But so far they have been able to extend the work the class is doing for him to accommodate his A/A potential. Yes, he would probably have more fun academically if he was in an entire set of potential A*s, but as it's generally the written work that lets less academic children down, they can have excellent class discussions, then he is just given more challenging written stuff to do.

"And why can't we have a system that serves the outliers?"

Of course we should. But it would not be reasonable to have a system which disadvantages the vast majority in order to serve the outliers.

accommodate his A/A potential*
It is depressing that for a really able child, it is just the goal of an A that matters. An able child will get the tick in the box of an A without much effort, and so can coast along (and in some cases disrupt others for most of the lesson because they are bored and can easily get through their own work sufficiently to get the A*), and but if s/he is in a class with all able peers they will go so much further with this, not just to get a qualification but because it is healthy and enriching to learn beyond the syllabus and spark of each other.
If your only aspiration is clean sweep of A*s, they can be in most schools. If you see education as more than just a tick list to get to the next stage, then selective education is vital. (I didn't use to belive this, until I went into teaching after a long career in another sector, and see for myself the boredom and complacency of some children in 'top sets' that by necessity, because of the comprehensive intake, have DC that are mostly not as able as the top one, or maybe two.

"accommodate his A/A potential*
It is depressing that for a really able child, it is just the goal of an A* that matters."

Yeah, that's exactly what I think. All I want from education is A*s.

Today 09:06 samsonagonistes
Different kinds of educational needs doesn't necessarily mean different schools though surely?

" but if s/he is in a class with all able peers they will go so much further with this, not just to get a qualification but because it is healthy and enriching to learn beyond the syllabuS"

And there is nothing at all that "able" children can learn from their "less able" peers- so much better to keep them well apart.

"Different kinds of educational needs doesn't necessarily mean different schools though surely?"

It does if you think that able, or "very able" children are a special group that need to be kept separate from their less able peers.............

"top 2% children...And it's a myth that state education can cater properly for these children."

I think DD might be in that top 2%. And she's doing great in a state comp. But I've no clue how top 2% is defined so maybe am delusional.

'"Different kinds of educational needs doesn't necessarily mean different schools though surely?"

It does if you think that able, or "very able" children are a special group that need to be kept separate from their less able peers.............'

Which I don't. I think children of all abilities can learn from each other and that kind of equality will enrich society. You just have to make sure the schools themselves are properly funded and supported by the community, government and media.

Hakluyt. I take from your DS expected grades and potential, that he will be transferring in sixth form to a grammar school. A grammar school will be able to stretch him to achieve his full potential as well as offering the "extra" factor required to gain access to the best Universities.

I also noted up thread that you said that you have no experience of top 2% academic pupils, but unless I am mistaken your DD has gone to Cambridge and only the top 0.5% of pupils get to Oxbridge Universities .

"Hakluyt. I take from your DS expected grades and potential, that he will be transferring in sixth form to a grammar school. A grammar school will be able to stretch him to achieve his full potential as well as offering the "extra" factor required to gain access to the best Universities.

I also noted up thread that you said that you have no experience of top 2% academic pupils, but unless I am mistaken your DD has gone to Cambridge and only the top 0.5% of pupils get to Oxbridge Universities ."

Not sure why any of that is relevant. However. He might transfer to a different school or for 6th form- it depends on the subjects he wants to do and how he feels. But if the prevailing view of Mumsnet is right he won't have the choice to go to the grammar anyway because he won't get the As he'll need.

I don't think I said anywhere that I don't know any top 2% ers? I know several. But no, my dd is not at Cambridge. So you are mistaken.

"Which I don't. I think children of all abilities can learn from each other and that kind of equality will enrich society."

This. Times 100.

Hakluyt I know from your many posts on grammars over the years that you live in Kent and abhor the system and you've explained your own home schooling. You've also told us about the outcomes for your two respective DC. By not many miles away I simply meant I grew up in the next county, that's all. By definition not far away. I've no idea exactly where you live, or who you are, so apologies if you thought I meant I did.

My own experience growing up in a fully grammar/ secondary model gives me at least as much perspective on it as those Desert Island Disc guests you invited me to listen to. Equally as much also as the grannies/ parents/ neighbours whose experience is relayed on MN in an attempt to prove or disprove one or other side of the argument. The major difference between then and now is that the alternative to grammar was much less good, in the sense of being even broadly equal.

Similarly it's not quite good enough to keep dismissing everyone else's experience of the effect of grammars unless they live in Kent. Although our local school is indeed a superselective, I've explained that those living very close by feel a very different effect to those living further afield. Also, you are absolutely wrong that superselectives take only the top 2%. Ours doesn't - the intake is much broader than that. What's more, and crucially, our particular school takes around 30% of those who sit the test. So areas like mine feel a very, very strong grammar effect from the point of view of how the kids are affected emotionally and how the parents react and I stand completely behind everything I've said. The parents feel it more than the kids and it's not fair to load that onto the kids. They'll move on just fine if the parents let them.

I'm also absolutely certain that vast numbers of the parents I've known over the years couldn't give a stuff about their kids not mixing with what you call 'hoi polloi'. My own view is that it's extremely beneficial for everyone to mix with people of different backgrounds and while it's certainly true that grammars have suffered from this grisly culture of tutoring, making them less of a mix, there are very real efforts going on (not before time) to correct that and move the clock back on the social front.

Theoretical I suspect that your DH simply didn't come across or get offered the drugs, not that they weren't there. Drugs were everywhere and are everywhere. Possibly slightly different drugs as fashions move on, but drugs nonetheless.

I'm not quite sure who has ever said that the re-introduction of grammars has to be on the Kent model either! A lot of people don't think the Kent grammars are especially good. A broader superselective system would work perfectly well, provided transport was paid for.

If Cambridge only takes the top 0.5% of pupils, and those are considered the outliers, then my local comprehensives and sixth form college seem to be managing just fine in supporting their education as they seem to send a far higher proportion of pupils to Oxbridge than my grammar school ever did.

I think this sums up the problems with the idea that grammar schools are about equality of opportunity. They are not.

Also Hakluyt I see no reason why arguments for catering for the top 5%, or even 10%, in grammars is much less compelling than catering for the top 2%. What's so very different about that? It still leaves 95% or 90%. All those kids are still going to benefit by faster paced teaching, for all the reasons others have said.

There are a lot of parents in Kent who don't put their kids forward for the 11+ because they want their children to attend their local high school, or they feel anxious about the grammar. Therefore the high schools do still have some very high ability students.

In my experience, and talking to a great many parents over the years, the vast majority of the ones who don't put their child forward for the test are normally those who realise their child isn't going to pass and therefore there is no point putting them through the stress and disappointment.

For example two children in ds's year group didn't take the test, both dyslexic, both now at non selective schools. I don't know what their overall ability is like but it was clear to their parents that they were very unlikely to pass.

There seem to be a few children who are sent to a high school because of their religion, though, regardless of ability.

There are a lot of parents in Kent who don't put their kids forward for the 11+ because they want their children to attend their local high school, or they feel anxious about the grammar. Therefore the high schools do still have some very high ability students

ROFL. Like secondary moderns in Kent are stuffed with bright kids that didn't sit the 11+. I certainly don't know any, or know anyone who knows any.